LITT
Try LITT free
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural recalibration of complex cryptocurrency litigation (04 October 2021)
A formal consent order adjusting critical evidentiary and expert witness timelines to accommodate the complex discovery requirements in the ongoing dispute between Huobi OTC DMCC and Tabarak Investment Capital.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural refinement of disclosure obligations (12 September 2021)
A procedural order clarifying the scope of document production and the necessity of Statements of Truth for multi-party disclosure requests in the Technology and Construction Division.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural discipline in the Technology and Construction Division
The DIFC Court reinforces strict adherence to Case Management Orders, denying relief from sanctions for late document production filings while imposing financial penalties.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural timeline management in the Technology and Construction Division (01 August 2021)
Deputy Registrar Ayesha Bin Kalban grants a variation of time for compliance with existing case management obligations, reinforcing the court’s flexible approach to procedural deadlines in complex commercial litigation.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Refining procedural timelines for complex TCD litigation (18 July 2021)
A consent order adjusting the procedural deadlines for eBundle filing and skeleton argument exchange in a high-stakes Technology and Construction Division dispute.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural adjustment for document production (08 July 2021)
A consent order refining the timeline for document production within the ongoing Technology and Construction Division litigation between Huobi OTC DMCC and Tabarak Investment Capital.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Amended case management order following failed joinder (22 June 2021)
The litigation concerns a complex commercial dispute involving Huobi OTC DMCC as the Claimant, and Tabarak Investment Capital Limited alongside Mr. Christian Thurner as the First and Second Defendants, respectively.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Stay of procedural directions pending joinder application (07 June 2021)
A consent order issued by the Technology and Construction Division pausing the litigation timetable to accommodate the Second Defendant’s pending application for an extension of time and the joinder of additional parties.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — The limits of joinder in complex cryptocurrency litigation (03 June 2021)
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the high threshold for joining non-parties under RDC Part 20, emphasizing that the availability of witness subpoenas renders joinder unnecessary for evidentiary purposes.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Procedural timeline management in complex cryptocurrency litigation (09 May 2021)
A consent order issued by the DIFC Registrar formalizing the deadline for the Second Defendant to file its defence, following a series of procedural extensions in the ongoing TCD litigation.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2021] DIFC TCD 001 — Establishing procedural rigor in complex cryptocurrency litigation (04 February 2021)
A foundational case management order establishing the evidentiary and expert witness roadmap for complex digital asset disputes within the DIFC Technology and Construction Division.
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2020] DIFC TCD 001 — Refining alternative service protocols in the Technology and Construction Division
The dispute centers on the procedural mechanics of serving legal process upon the Second Defendant in a claim initiated by Huobi OTC DMCC. Following the initial filing of the claim, the Claimant sought to ensure that the service of the Amended Claim Form and Amended Particulars of Claim complied…
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2020] DIFC TCD 001 — Consent order on procedural amendments
The litigation involves a commercial dispute between Huobi OTC DMCC and Tabarak Investment Capital Limited, currently pending before the Technology and Construction Division. The Claimant, Huobi OTC DMCC, initiated the Application Notice on 17 August 2020, seeking to fundamentally alter the…
HUOBI OTC DMCC v TABARAK INVESTMENT CAPITAL [2020] DIFC TCD 001 — Formalizing TCD jurisdiction for complex commercial disputes
The dispute between Huobi OTC DMCC and Tabarak Investment Capital Limited centers on the formal classification of the proceedings within the DIFC Court structure. Following the filing of the initial claim form on 4 March 2020, the Claimant sought to ensure that the matter was adjudicated within the…
GEORGIA CORPORATION v GAVINO SUPPLIES [2016] DIFC ARB 005 — The Limits of Procedural Obstruction in Award Enforcement (11 October 2016) [#2]
The DIFC Court of First Instance clarifies the high threshold for staying the enforcement of a final arbitral award, rejecting speculative claims of double recovery and improper discovery requests.
OLEN v ORETA [2025] DIFC ARB 031 — The Proportionality Threshold in Post-Award Costs Recovery (2 October 2025) [#2]
A focused assessment of the DIFC Court’s discretion to apply proportionality reductions to legal costs following the successful recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
YYY v ZZZ [2017] DIFC ARB 005 — The Jurisdictional Tug-of-War and the Limits of the Joint Judicial Committee Stay
The dispute centers on a 30-year Hotel Management Agreement (HMA) executed in 2013 between YYY and ZZZ. Following a breakdown in the relationship, ZZZ obtained an ex parte injunction in the DIFC Court to prevent YYY from interfering with its management of the hotel.
Ludhyan v Lucina [2020] DIFC ARB XX — Expedited procedural timelines and committal proceedings
Registrar Nour Hineidi issues a strict procedural order truncating timelines for declaratory relief and committal applications in the DIFC Court of First Instance.
Ludhyan v Lucina [2020] DIFC ARB XX — Anti-suit injunction against onshore proceedings (26 October 2020)
The dispute centers on the Applicant, Ludhyan, seeking to protect its position in an ongoing arbitration by preventing the Respondent, Lucina, from continuing parallel litigation in the onshore Dubai Courts. The core of the conflict involves Dubai Court Case No.
LUDHYAN v LUCINA [2020] DIFC ARB XX — Anti-suit injunction against parallel Dubai Court proceedings
H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi grants an ex parte anti-suit injunction to restrain parallel litigation in the Dubai Courts, pending a return date hearing.
GINETTE v GEARY MIDDLE EAST [2015] DIFC ARB 012 — Enforcement of arbitral award upheld despite challenges to signatory authority (07 April 2016)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms the validity of an arbitration agreement signed by a non-director, reinforcing the doctrine of apparent authority and the limited scope for challenging arbitral awards under the DIFC Arbitration Law.
GIACINTA v GILAM [2016] DIFC ARB 004 — The Jurisdictional Shield Against Parallel Annulment Tactics (20 September 2016)
The DIFC Court of First Instance affirms its autonomy in enforcing arbitral awards, rejecting attempts to leverage the Joint Judicial Committee’s stay powers under Decree 19 of 2016 to obstruct enforcement.
Eava v Egan [2014] DIFC ARB 005 — Enforcement of ICC Awards and the Limits of Dilatory Challenges
The dispute originated from a commercial transaction in February 2011, wherein Egan, a Dubai-based air cargo company, agreed to purchase three aircraft engines from Eava, a U.S. company specializing in the sale and lease of commercial aircraft engines.
CHENSHAN LIU v DUBAI WATERFRONT [2016] DIFC ARB 004 — The Limits of the Joint Judicial Committee’s Jurisdictional Reach
Justice Sir David Steel affirms the DIFC Courts' exclusive statutory authority to enforce arbitration awards, ruling that the Joint Judicial Committee cannot unilaterally extinguish enforcement powers.